See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: An Open Letter to the Obamophobes
Source:
Me
URL Source: [None]
Published: May 4, 2008
Author: Me, Me, Me
Post Date: 2008-05-04 19:22:53 by a vast rightwing conspirator
Keywords: None
Views: 3856
Comments: 154
I keep hearing from a number of thoughtful and well-meaning members of this forum statements such as this one: "most Os have yet to put together a rational argument for his candidacy, save white guilt." I am not going to comment on the honesty of the charge but I am going to address it. It should settle the issue definitively and it should turn all rational and America-loving Obamophobes into enthusiastic supporters of Dr. Barack. If you (and it's a generic 'you') insist on being so intellectually lazy or derelict as to being unable or unwilling to see any difference between the three of them, that's the way you see things or rather imagine them and I am unable to cure or even treat your intellectual laziness or dereliction. I shall point out to you that even Dr. Paul saw a difference between the 3 and expressed a preference for Dr. Obama but you showed extreme obtuseness, dogmatism, lack of imagination and an inability to accept facts on a recent thread discussing that topic. Some of you or rather all of you (still that generic 'you') keep throwing the "there's not one dime worth of difference between the three" argument - never backed with facts of any kind - to which I reply: remove the dogmatic blinders and look around. Yes, Dr. O is a bit of a socialist because he is a Democrat but, remember, presidents don't get to appropriate one dime, it's the congress that appropriates funds and there will be no expansion of socialism unless the congress funds it. However, presidents do have the power to bring our troops back home and avoid wasting trillions on ruinous military adventures. It is likely that Dr. O would ease our foreign wars burden if elected president, even Dr. Paul admits it. So, help save America. Help Obama defeat Hillary and politically slay the odious McCain so that the American dreams don't die yet. There's trillions of dollars worth of difference between them. And, if you are concerned about socialist spending, help elect fiscally conservative reps and senators.
My friend, the rationale has been provided to you, more than once: the alternatives to Dr. O are either Hillary or McCain. We can hardly afford one of the 2 in the White House.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-96) not displayed.
.
.
.
#97. To: iconoclast (#80)
That's not entirely accurate as my vote in a national election still only impacts North Carolina. Again, my criteria is to look for those who are as close as possible to the Founders in their practice/belief. Are there exceptions to my rule of thumb? Yes. I will exercise that tomorrow as I vote for Carl Mumpower against John Armor (aka Congressman Billybob on FreeRepublic) who is a moderate Republican and again for Heath Shuler if by some miracle Armor wins the primary tomorrow. Armor is a threat and danger to our Constitutional Republic and cannot, must not, be allowed to rule in any capacity. I can't state emphatically enough how dangerous this man is. Obama says the right things about Iraq which gets a lot of traction here. The cold reality is President Bush has locked into Iraq for the foreseeable future. Obama may be able to reduce our presence, but it is highly unlikely he will be able to get us out altogether. When tomorrow comes, there is a candidate running for President who is best aligned with the Founders (Ron Paul) and that's who'll I vote for. I make no apologies for that and I reject on its face the notion my vote will screw the nation or that this nation is screwed, period. We'll survive, won't be easy, but we'll survive.
"What began in Russia will end in America."- 1930, Elder Ignatius of Harbin, Manchuria.
Well, to play devil's advocate here for a minute, hasn't Obama been calling for an expanded role in Afghanistan? What good is swapping one foreign policy quagmire for another? Sure, "obliterate them" Hillary is an obscenity; and so is "bomb bomb" McCain, but is "let's bomb Pakistan" Obomba any better? Ghost, you are no better an advocate for the devil than you are for Obama. Obama has clearly stated that he desires to root out bin Laden and rid the world of him. That was our nation's stance way back in '02 ... one that was damn nearly supported by our all of our fellow citizens and just about the entire civilized world! I for one still support it. I speak as one who has often stated the position that of the 3 bad candidates left "in the running", Obama is the least bad. I still believe that, a LITTLE BIT, For cysakes ghost, please CEASE such "support". With friends like you, who needs enemies? Go ahead .... join the "vote for Aaron Burr" camp, or whoever ... you're not opposing the Obamaphobes, you're tossing them raw meat every day. In this instance, the Decider is finally on to something ... you're either for us or against us.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Well, to play devil's advocate here for a minute, hasn't Obama been calling for an expanded role in Afghanistan? What good is swapping one foreign policy quagmire for another? Sure, "obliterate them" Hillary is an obscenity; and so is "bomb bomb" McCain, but is "let's bomb Pakistan" Obomba any better? Ghost, you are no better an advocate for the devil than you are for Obama. Obama has clearly stated that he desires to root out bin Laden and rid the world of him. That was our nation's stance way back in '02 ... one that was damn nearly supported by our all of our fellow citizens and just about the entire civilized world! I for one still support it. I speak as one who has often stated the position that of the 3 bad candidates left "in the running", Obama is the least bad. I still believe that, a LITTLE BIT, For cysakes ghost, please CEASE such "support". With friends like you, who needs enemies? Go ahead .... join the "vote for Aaron Burr" camp, or whoever ... you're not opposing the Obamaphobes, you're tossing them raw meat every day. In this instance, the Decider is finally on to something ... you're either for us or against us. Then you can smugly vote for Ron again and the nation is screwed. That's not entirely accurate as my vote in a national election still only impacts North Carolina. That's not entirely accurate. If enough sooters turn our tomorrow it could determine the momentum and the ultimate nominee of the Democrat party. If the consequent McCain-Clinton contest doesn't effect North Carolinians, then y'all have some Secession plans I'm not privy to.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Unlike many I have a microphone and have been on record as far back as the first Iraq war being opposed to wars in far away places....good try no cigar
He's just being honest. Just because Obama is less likely to go to war with Iran shouldn't blind people like you to the fact that Obama is no Ron Paul on foreign policy, and to the fact that on domestic social and economic issues, Obama is even more of a socialist than Hillary Clinton. I can understand people voting for Obama as a lesser evil on foreign policy, but what I can't for the life of me get is how people here delude themselves into being excited about supporting the guy - unless you like the thought of paying a Global Tax and having more gun-grabbing legislation signed into law. The Obamaphiles here remind me of many Bush supporters in 2000. They started out grudgingly voting for "the lesser evil" because at the time Gore seemed even worse, but somehow they conned themselves into turning "lesser evil" into "greatest thing since sliced bread."
Same here, only it goes back to Korea. My opinion is congruent with Obama's ... we both oppose "dumb wars" ... and we both make an exception with regard to Osama.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
I fell right out of my seat when I actually understood it was YOU that said this. Someone else called it first...you just might not be a Globalist-Marxist after all. Still prolly a CFR-D...but waking up to the realities brought to you by TPTB. CFR National Party politics today is totally fixed; it is nothing more than a well orchestrated show, it's rigged and the game is over. Now what? I couldn't make it any further than that first sentence in the second paragraph...fell out of my seat again. Ok, I'll get back to the rest of your post now.
I myself don't support this 'war on terror'. And when Obama voices support for it, then I don't like him for it. The FBI said there is no evidence agaisnt Bin Laden in the september 11 events. the whole war on terror is a wild goose chase where the only real goal is more war. We don't have any good choices, so if we make a choice that someone else says is bad, then what difference does it make? If you're against terrorism, then the first thing to do about it is to have a real investigation of september 11 events. I think the people who directed that there be no response by the USAF to the hijackings should be jailed for incompetence if not for terrorism. this is where we need to start. and who was it that allowed the bombs to be planted in those 3 buildings. They need to be arrested too for incompetence if not for terrorism. this is how you fight terrorism, by directly confronting those responsible for it and punishing them. But you can't do that by just overthrowing the Afghan government. The Afghan government did not attack us. We gave aid to the afghan government even, the last aid check we gave them was in August of 2001. Who were the senators & congressmen who approved that aid check to the Taliban? They should be voted out long long long before we even consider war against them. and we didn't vote them out. What about the FBI undercover agent who made the bomb used in the 1993 bombing of the parking garage at the WTC? That individual was following orders, but who gave him those orders and who set this priority? That individual should be jailed. So, since Obama doesn't care about who the culprits are and punishing them, he wants to go on this wild-goose chase in Afghanistan/Pakistan, etc., then I say that Obama is soft on terror. same with Clinton & McCain.
Revelation 6:6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and [see] thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
Well if you a student of war-fare than you know there have not been any "just wars" in the past century....I could make a exception for the Boer War
Just because Obama is less likely to go to war with Iran shouldn't blind people like you to the fact that Obama is no Ron Paul on foreign policy, Who the hell else has been since Bob Taft? The rest of your post is just Limbaugh applesauce circa 1992.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
THAT is what has everyone's last antennae (of many) up imo...
That's a huge unmistakable tell right there when they support Zbig...or Kissinger.
Do you disagree that Obama will work to expand the welfare state, or do you just not care? Foreign policy is an important issue, but it shouldn't be the only one.
I think it's funny that two neocons put up a ridiculous gas tax holiday and BHO was right there to look like some People's champion while being the most Liberal United States Senator in the whole coop...they're all mocking us. TPTB pwned us.
There are things about Obama that trouble me. His association with Zbig, for example, bothers me. Zbig was in large part an architect of the Afghanistan policy that dragged that nation into chaos, killed a lot of people, and created Al Qaida, among a host of other sins. 1) Bush's plan was not Zbig's plan. 2) Created Al Qaida? I hate to even paraphrase McInsane, but Al Qaida was IN Afghanistan! 3) I assure you Zbig's plan did not include "cutting and running" from the Paki border to pursue the Iraq debacle and the Oil & Israel dreams. Stop hitting the snooze button ... there's serious election coming up in November and if enough people who should know better don't come down on the right side you're gonna have a couple of doozies to finally make your choice from.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
I guess I'll worry about that when we get off the Chinese welfare that Bush has put our nation on.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
1) Bush's plan was not Zbig's plan. 2) Created Al Qaida? I hate to even paraphrase McInsane, but Al Qaida was IN Afghanistan! 3) I assure you Zbig's plan did not include "cutting and running" from the Paki border to pursue the Iraq debacle and the Oil & Israel dreams. Stop hitting the snooze button ... there's serious election coming up in November and if enough people who should know better don't come down on the right side you're gonna have a couple of doozies to finally make your choice from.
Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin notwithstanding, of course. Given I identify with Ron Paul, that's how I'm voting. In the larger scheme of things in North Carolina, my vote, as former Governor Jesse Ventura put it, is essentially for none of the above. I can't identify with any of the Big 3. I'll vote for Ron Paul tomorrow and sleep very peaceful about it. However, if Hillary gets elected, I can just about assure you one of the Houses of Congress will go Republican. If elections are honest, we historically vote in opposing parties in the various branches. A Republican House/Senate would actually give a little lip service to the Constitution and defy Hillary on almost every move. A McCain presidency would almost assure a Democrat Congress who would present a real stumbling block to his aggressive foreign agenda.
"What began in Russia will end in America."- 1930, Elder Ignatius of Harbin, Manchuria.
Partisan gridlock is the best we can hope for as of now. President Obama + GOP Congress would be great. He'd propose bills, they wouldn't pass. They pass, he vetoes. No new laws passed means no harm done. Now, McCain + Democratic Congress is more of a problem. McCain gets along well with Democrats, especially pro-neocon Democrat "hawks," so having a split Exec/Legislative branch wouldn't give us the same safeguards.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Given I identify with Ron Paul, that's how I'm voting. In the larger scheme of things in North Carolina, my vote, as former Governor Jesse Ventura put it, is essentially for none of the above. I can't identify with any of the Big 3. I'll vote for Ron Paul tomorrow and sleep very peaceful about it. However, if Hillary gets elected, I can just about assure you one of the Houses of Congress will go Republican. If elections are honest, we historically vote in opposing parties in the various branches. A Republican House/Senate would actually give a little lip service to the Constitution and defy Hillary on almost every move. A McCain presidency would almost assure a Democrat Congress who would present a real stumbling block to his aggressive foreign agenda. McNuts will rubber stamp whatever the RATS and he can conjure up, including the CFR's-rockefellerian Globalist agenda...I guess the best case scenario is that the CFR-D and CFR-R Party wings will cease to exist? The worst case scenario is that Marxism in the form of a North American Soviet Union and Union of the Americas takes over and quickly. It's on the way right now...it's all bad from here on out, no matter how it's dressed up. The globaalists won.
Obama Economic Controller By Webster Tarpley OBAMA'S TRIFECTA: FOREIGN POLICY LINE IS RUN BY TRILATERAL FOUNDER ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI -OBAMA''S WIFE LINKED TO COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS WASHINGTON DC -- Barack Obama's top economics adviser is a member of the super-secret Skull & Bones society of Yale University, of which George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and John Kerry are also members, reliable sources confirmed tonight. Goolsbee is widely reported to have told Obama not to back a compulsory freeze on home mortgage foreclosures to help the struggling middle class in the current depression crisis, as demanded by former candidate John Edwards. Hillary Clinton has advocated a one-year voluntary freeze on foreclosures. Obama has offered counselors to comfort mortgage victims as they are dispossessed, citing the 'moral hazard' of protecting the public interest from Wall Street sharks. By adding the infamous Skull & Bones secret society to his campaign roster, Obama, who bills himself as the candidate of change and hope, has attained a prefect trifecta of oligarchical and financier establishment backing for his attempt to seize the nomination of the Democratic Party for 2008. Obama's main overall image adviser and foreign policy adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the co-founder of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, and the mastermind of the disastrous Carter administration. Obama's wife Michelle is reputed to be closely linked to the Council on Foreign Relations. Behind the utopian platitudes dished up by the Illinois senator, the face of the Wall Street money elite comes into clearer and clearer focus. George Will, in an October 2007 Washington Post column saluted Goolsbee's "nuanced understanding" of traditional Democratic issues like globalization and income inequality; he "seems to be the sort of fellow -- amiable, empirical, and reasonable--you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be," wrote the arch-oligarchical apologist Will. From Wikipedia: 'Austan D. Goolsbee is an economist and is currently the Robert P. Gwinn Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. He is also a Research Fellow at the American Bar Foundation[1], Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a member of the Panel of Economic Advisors to the Congressional Budget Office. He has been Barack Obama's economic advisor since Obama's successful U.S. Senate campaign in Illinois. He is the lead economic advisor to the 2008 Obama presidential campaign.' pInG
That's a lotta weight to put on one man's shoulders. He's a politician, not some divine presence come to "rescue" America. It's the very highhandedness of this claim that this man will "remake the world" that makes some of us laugh. You gotta be shittin' me.
Au contraire, scooter, if history is any indicator. In the twelve instances of a President's first time run for the Presidency (back to and including Hoover) the results are as follows: Only two presidents entered office with the opposition party in control of both houses. (Nixon and Bush I). One president entered office with the houses split. (Reagan, Republican Senate). One other (Bush II) had a 50/50 split in the Senate (if you want to count that).
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Any points to make since the end of the Cold War?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
The old, "vote for "x" or the world as we know it will end" routine! The same shit that's been bandied about by ideologues of the two-party fraud since the days of the BBS message boards. I've heard it all before. I'll tell you now the same thing I've told others in the past. I don't care. I have certain beliefs. If I do not believe that a candidate's belief's are in line with my beliefs, then they do not get my vote. Period. I do not believe that Obama's belief's are in line with my own. I believe him to be a government supremist. The same goes for Clinton and McCain. If I thought that Obama was serious in his rhetoric about the war, it might be different, but I do not believe this to be the case. I believe he is pandering for votes. Others disagree and that's fine. They have their vote and I have mine.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
How soon we forget the havoc in NY, the multiple beheadings, oft as not of innocents. No, Jihadist terrror is for real. He, bin Laden, proclaimed responsibility for 9/11, live and on video, right before your lyin' eyes ... even confessed that he was pleasantly rather amazed at the resultant destruction. It he chooses to recant on the gallows, just pull the trap door on the SOB anyway. Had the neocons not leaped on the tragedy to excuse their lust for Imperial power + Israeli domination of the ME ... and the Oil Prez & Veep for the same plus riches, the job would have been accomplished long ago. BTW, Did the FBI wipe any of the egg of their faces before making their statement?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
It's a pleasant dream, but I ref. you to #126
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
You should live so long as to cast an effectual vote. Best of luck.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
How effective votes are are strictly in the eyes of those casting the vote. You're welcome to your opinion and to cast your vote as you see fit, as will I.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Sounds like a plan!
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Middle East hegemony and corporate profits just might be a real goals. They don't war just for war's sake, but to use it to achieve one or more real goals.
[robin different thread] it [nc - using bozo] is an attempt to escape hateful, racist remarks that do not make my day better. [Pinguinite #22] And if it doesn't matter, what's the big deal that there's so much infighting here over this subject? As there is little policy difference between Obama and Hillary, and almost no difference argued, the reason some proclaim the election makes no difference and then spend all day bashing just one candidate, Obama, is not based upon his ideology or policy positions. Obama is black and it is based on race. We have had info being posted directly from racist (and sexist) Christian Identity slop, just not identified as such. One such site offers a poll on whether to send the Blacks back to Africa, and a petititon to repeal the 19th Amendment and revoke women's right to vote. The women can take a neat pledge giving their vote to their godlike husband: "I, as a submissive woman of God, and of sound mind, do hereby give my vote to this man of God: __________________ to exercise for the glory of Yahvh, our Creator." This site has been blessed with online polling data from that nuthouse. One might say a poll from such a source is less than reliable. Hillary voted against a ban on partial birth abortion, October 21, 2003. That is the procedure where the child is partly delivered feet first, the skull is pierced and the brains vacuumed out, the skull collapsed, then the delivery completed, cutting it up into pieces as necessary to get it out. On what policy or ideology basis could one single out Obama for abortion condemnation? If such people want to say they are racists and hate black people, they can do so. I get tired of a one-sided racist smear campaign disingenuously posing as non-racist opinion.
Real but bogus. But, I just can't let go of revenge for invasion. Probably just the Irish in me.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Comments (138 - 154) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThen you can smugly vote for Ron again and the nation is screwed.
#98. To: ghostdogtxn, a vast rightwing conspirator, *Obama 2008 (#94)
#99. To: bookmark, *Obama Reality Check* (#98)
To: ghostdogtxn, a vast rightwing conspirator, *Obama 2008
#100. To: scooter (#97)
#101. To: iconoclast (#95)
which apparently has also affected you?
#102. To: Mudboy Slim (#99)
(Edited)
hunnerd
two
#103. To: iconoclast (#98)
(Edited)
#104. To: robnoel (#101)
Unlike many I have a microphone and have been on record as far back as the first Iraq war being opposed to wars in far away places
#105. To: iconoclast (#98)
#106. To: ghostdogtxn (#94)
Sure, "obliterate them" Hillary is an obscenity; and so is "bomb bomb" McCain, but is "let's bomb Pakistan" Obomba any better?
#107. To: ghostdogtxn (#105)
(Edited)
[Although if you're against the Establishment, you would be be against McHillObama...must be a "D" thing around here.]
I'm not FOR Obama or AGAINST Obama, I'm FOR America, and I'm FOR peace.
#108. To: iconoclast (#98)
#109. To: iconoclast (#104)
#110. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#103)
#111. To: ghostdogtxn (#105)
But I'm not a fan of cults of personality.
#112. To: ghostdogtxn (#105)
There are things about Obama that trouble me. His association with Zbig, for example, bothers me. Zbig was in large part an architect of the Afghanistan policy that dragged that nation into chaos, killed a lot of people, and created Al Qaida, among a host of other sins.
#113. To: iconoclast (#110)
(Edited)
#114. To: ghostdogtxn (#105)
Obama's shameless kissing of the ring with AIPAC and Israel bothers me, too. I recognize that such bowing and rhetorical scraping to the PTB is sometimes necessary to maintain one's aspirations, but it still bothers me.
#115. To: ghostdogtxn (#105)
#116. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#113)
(Edited)
Do you disagree that Obama will work to expand the welfare state, or do you just not care?
#117. To: iconoclast (#115)
Crack that O'whip !! LOLOL
#118. To: iconoclast (#115)
...there's serious election coming up in November and if enough people who should know better don't come down on the right side you're gonna have a couple of doozies to finally make your choice from.
#119. To: scooter (#118)
(Edited)
However, if Hillary gets elected, I can just about assure you one of the Houses of Congress will go Republican. If elections are honest, we historically vote in opposing parties in the various branches. A Republican House/Senate would actually give a little lip service to the Constitution and defy Hillary on almost every move. A McCain presidency would almost assure a Democrat Congress who would present a real stumbling block to his aggressive foreign agenda.
#120. To: iconoclast (#115)
#121. To: scooter (#118)
Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin notwithstanding, of course.
#122. To: ghostdogtxn (#120)
(Edited)
http://www.rense.com/general80/web.htm
To Zbig, the Afghanis were expendable pawns in his ambition to humiliate the Soviet Union and bloody them up a bit. That tells you a lot about the man and his opinions, and it ought to trouble you that Obama has taken such a Macchiavellian on as an advisor.
Is Skull And Bones Member
Austan 'The Ghoul' Goolsbee, Yale '91
2-4-8
#123. To: Jethro Tull, *Obama Reality Check* (#122)
#124. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
So, help save America
#125. To: All, *North American Union* (#122)
By adding the infamous Skull & Bones secret society to his campaign roster, Obama, who bills himself as the candidate of change and hope, has attained a prefect trifecta of oligarchical and financier establishment backing for his attempt to seize the nomination of the Democratic Party for 2008. Obama's main overall image adviser and foreign policy adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the co-founder of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, and the mastermind of the disastrous Carter administration. Obama's wife Michelle is reputed to be closely linked to the Council on Foreign Relations. Behind the utopian platitudes dished up by the Illinois senator, the face of the Wall Street money elite comes into clearer and clearer focus.
#126. To: scooter (#118)
we historically vote in opposing parties in the various branches. A Republican House/Senate would actually give a little lip service to the Constitution and defy Hillary on almost every move. A McCain presidency would almost assure a Democrat Congress who would present a real stumbling block to his aggressive foreign agenda.
#127. To: ghostdogtxn (#120)
#128. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
My friend, the rationale has been provided to you, more than once: the alternatives to Dr. O are either Hillary or McCain.
#129. To: Red Jones (#108)
I myself don't support this 'war on terror'. And when Obama voices support for it, then I don't like him for it. The FBI said there is no evidence agaisnt Bin Laden in the september 11 events. the whole war on terror is a wild goose chase where the only real goal is more war.
#130. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#119)
President Obama + GOP Congress would be great. He'd propose bills, they wouldn't pass. They pass, he vetoes. No new laws passed means no harm done.
#131. To: Hayek Fan (#128)
If I do not believe that a candidate's belief's are in line with my beliefs, then they do not get my vote.
#132. To: iconoclast (#131)
You should live so long as to cast an effectual vote. Best of luck.
#133. To: iconoclast (#131)
(Edited)
You should live so long as to cast an effectual vote. Best of luck.
#134. To: Hayek Fan (#133)
You're welcome to your opinion and to cast your vote as you see fit, as will I.
#135. To: Red Jones, iconoclast (#108)
the whole war on terror is a wild goose chase where the only real goal is more war.
#136. To: Pinguinite (#22)
[a vast rightwing conspirator - article] Some of you or rather all of you (still that generic 'you') keep throwing the "there's not one dime worth of difference between the three" argument
#137. To: nolu_chan, Red Jones (#135)
Middle East hegemony and corporate profits just might be a real goals.
.
.
.